Wheat v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 1985 · most notably Polk v. State (1985), Bullard v. State (1977)
25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 132 Tex. Crim. 371 - Arbuckle v. State · 168 Tex. Crim. 306 - Rogers v. State · 169 Tex. Crim. 239 - Rogers v. State · Johnson v. State · Broussard v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . [t]o invoke the provisions of Article 63 . . . it is necessary that each succeeding conviction be subsequent both in point of time of the commission of the offense and the conviction therefor. Guilliams v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 81 , 261 S.W.2d 598 , and cases cited. “The indictment must so allege and the averments of the indictment must be supported by proof. Arbuckle v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 371 , 105 S.W.2d 219, 221 ; Armendariz v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 515 , 294 S.W.2d 98, 99 .””
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hardin v. State · Ex Parte Ash““MR. HIRTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. We respectively call the court’s attention to the fact that it (the authenticated prison records relating to the 1960 burglary conviction) alleges the date of the commission of the offense of burglary to be the 14th of June, 1960. And we would rely upon Article 179 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure of 1925, that the statute of limitations was five years and that the conviction in the theft case, No. 69107, was a final conviction, before the commission of the offense on which the indictment in Cause No. 92359 is based, Your Honor. “MR. BURNS: I will so stipulate, that the five years has run in both of them. “MR. HIRTZ: The State so stipulates. Do you stipulate, Mr. Villareal ? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. “MR. HIRTZ: I have no further questions of Mr. Butts. ' “MR. BURNS: My stipulation is: The five years has run on the ’60 conviction. I am not stipulating anything as to Cause No. 69107, but I will stipulate as to the 1960 conviction; which number is that? “THE COURT: You have stipulated as to No. 92359. “MR. BURNS: You understand, I am not stipulating to anything on the ’54 conviction, which is 69107? “MR. HIRTZ: Except that it was a final conviction before the offense was committed in Cause No. 92359; is that correct ? “MR. BURNS: I am not stipulating to anything. “MR. HIRTZ: Well, it is already in evidence before the Court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Villareal v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.